A person who is deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh under Article 2 is not required to take any oath of allegiance unless he is elected or appointed to any office mentioned in the Third Schedule of the Constitution: per MH Rahman J.
Per Mustafa Kamal J (agreeing): For purposes of being a "deemed citizen" of Bangladesh under Article 2, no person is required to express an allegiance to Bangladesh either by law or by the Rules. He becomes a "deemed citizen" of Bangladesh by operation of law.
The legal fiction as to continuance of residence in Bangladesh as provided in proviso to Article 2 must be limited to the purpose for which it is created and should be strictly construed and should not be extended in the name of beneficial construction beyond its context.
Where the proviso to Article 2 is attracted a citizen will not be required to explain further his case for staying abroad. That provision of law will not however, preclude a citizen from explaining his staying abroad on other good reasons. For example, from December 1971 to September 1973, due to snapping of all communications between Bangladesh and Pakistan and because of non-recognition of Bangladesh by Pakistan, hundreds of Bengali citizens were stranded in Pakistan.
Bangladesh vs Professor Golam Azam 46 DLR (AD) 192.

The proviso to this Article uses the expression "permanent resident" to denote those who had domicile of origin in Bangladesh and then uses the expression "residence" to denote shall be final-Appeal allowed. (Minority view). Government of Bangladesh vs Messrs Ispahani 40 DLR (AD) 116.

The birth right of anyone to be a citizen of any particular country could not be brushed aside in the absence of any positive contrary intention manifested so as to deprive him of the right to be a citizen of a country where he was born. Bangladesh vs Rehana Kamal and others 56 DLR (AD) 1.

"Residence" or "permanent residence" both expressions have been used in PO No. 149 of 1972-In Article 2(ii) it is the permanent resident that was contemplated in contradistinction to persons whose residence was in UK-Respondent severed all connections on 28-2-1972 for possessing a Pakistan passport. Government of Bangladesh vs Messers lspahani 40 DLR (AD)

Even a diehard pro­-Pakistani, born in this country, is entitled to be a citizen of Bangladesh if he fulfils the requirements under Article 2 and is not disqualified under clause (I) of Article 2B. Bangladesh vs Professor Golam Azam 46 DLR (AD) 192.

The question of allegiance is important in considering disqualification under Article 2B. In this case allegiance, as such, is irrelevant as the impugned notification is made under Article 3. Bangladesh vs Professor Golam Azam 46 DLR (AD) 192.

Dual nationality is provided for in clause 2 of Article 2B. Article 2(B) has provided 'a citizen of Bangladesh shall not merely by reason of being a citizen or acquiring citizenship of a state specified in or under clause (2) cease to be a citizen of Bangladesh." Clause 2 runs as follows:
"The Government may grant citizenship of Bangladesh to any person who is a citizen of any state of Europe or North America or of any other state which the Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf."
In other words it has provided for dual international law by many countries. This aspect of the case should not detain us for the disposal of this appeal because if there is any doubt as to a person whether he is qualified to be deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh the question shall be decided by the Government, which decision shall be final (vide Article 3).
Government of Bangladesh vs Messrs Jspahani 40 DLR (AD) 116.

Admittedly the plaintiff and his family members including his son were permanent residents of Bangladesh on the 26th day of March, 1971. But the question before us as to whether the plaintiff himself continues to be so resident and is not otherwise disqualified for being a citizen by a under any law for the time being in force. By conferring the citizenship the respondent is deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh and has continued to be a permanent resident as a citizen of Bangladesh. The conferment of citizenship to the resident under Article 2 of the Order impliedly declared that the plaintiff- respondent qualified himself as a citizen of Bangladesh. The plaintiffs staying in Pakistan, without any formation of any opinion that his stay was prejudicial to the interest of Bangladesh under the circumstances should not be the consideration inasmuch as the concerned laws do not put any such disqualification to be deemed against a citizen of Bangladesh. Sena Kalayan Sangstha Vs. Mr. Nagar Mohiuddin & Ors 14 BLT (AD)-230.

Citizenship—The respondent was born in the territory now comprised in Bangladesh but l temporary absence is covered by the proviso of P.O. 149 of 1972 and the law says, “he shall be deemed to continue to be resident in Bangladesh, notwithstanding his temporary residence in a country which was at war or aged in military operations against Bangladesh.”—His assertion that he was prevented from returning to Bangladesh by the circumstances which had not been challenged—In the eye of law, therefore, he remains a resident of Bangladesh. People’s Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Haque; 2 BLD (AD) 143.

By conferring the citizenship the respondent is deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh and has continued to be a permanent resident as a citizen of Bangladesh. The conferment of citizenship to the resident under Article 2 of the Order impliedly declared that the plaintiff-respondent qualified himself as a citizen of Bangladesh. The plaintiff's staying in Pakistan) without any formation of any opinion that his stay was prejudicial to the interest of Bangladesh, under the circumstances should not be the consideration, inasmuch as the concerned laws do not put any such disqualification to be deemed against a citizen of Bangladesh. The respondent being a citizen and permanent resident of Bangladesh and having been found to be deemed to be a citizen upon conferment of citizenship under the provisions of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1972, and under Article 3 thereof, the Government considering the circumstances having decided as such which shall be final and the appellants have as well failed to prove that he is otherwise disqualified under the' concerned laws including the law on abandoned properties. Sena Kalyan Sangstha vs Haji Sufi Fazal Ahmed and ors 10 BLC (AD) 198.

It is clear that the respondents though filed nationality certificate and the power of attorney to show that they are citizens of Bangladesh which had not been controverted by any tangible mate­rial on record, the birth right of any one to be a citizen of any particular country could not be brushed aside in the absence of any positive contrary inten­tion manifested so as to deprive him the right to be a citizen of a country where he was born. Bangladesh vs Mrs. Rehanan Kamal (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 2ADC 480

The Family Courts Ordinance, 1985
Section 5, 16(3) r/w
Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC)
Articles 7, 12, 20 and 21 r/w
Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1972
Section 2
Custody of the minor children– Custody of the minor children, particularly in this case in which the detainees are 9 & 11 year old girl children and their mother is a Japanese well settled doctor and their father being a well settled person is a Bangladeshi by birth and also a citizen of America, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minors and not the legal right of this and that particular party. The reasons stated, pass the following order:-
i) 1. Nakano Jasmine Malika @ Jasmine Malika Sharif 2. Nakano Laila Lina @ Laila Lina Sharif aged about 11(eleven) years and 9(nine) years respectively in the custody of writ respondent No. 5 Imran Sharif is declared to be unlawful and they are being held in his custody in an unlawful manner.
ii) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and interest of the Children, the Children namely 1. Nakano Jasmine Malika @ Jasmine Malika Sharif and 2. Nakano Laila Lina @ Laila Lina Sharif will not be taken out of the jurisdiction of this Court save and except with leave of this court.
iii) It is directed that the detainees shall remain in custody of their mother-Eriko Nakano pending disposal of the Family Suit No. 247 of 2021 at present, pending in the Court of Assistant Judge, Second Additional Court, Family Court, Dhaka.
iv) The Family Court concerned is directed to conclude the Family Suit No. 247 of 2021 within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order.
v) It is made clear that the observations which have been made by us are only for the limited purpose of engaging summary inquiry for consideration in the petition of Habeas corpus and will be of no assistance to either party in the custody proceedings pending in the Family Court which indeed will be decided on its own merits.
vi) The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside.
vii) The father will have the right to visit the children at a convenient agreed time, place and period.
viii) The leave petition is accordingly disposed of.
ix) The Contempt Petition No. 31 of 2021 is accordingly redundant. .....Eriko Nakano, Japan =VS= Ministry of Home Affairs, BD, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 222] ....View Full Judgment

Article 3 does not either specifically or by implication exclude the principle of 'hear the other side:' Per MH Rahman J. Bangladesh vs Professor Golam Azam 46 DLR (AD) 192.

[Prof. Golam Azam, the Jamaat leader, hereinafter called the respondent, left for Pakistan on 22 November, 1971 but he could not turn back because of the War of Liberation, 1971. Whether Government notification dated April 18, 1973 declaring Prof. Golam Azam disqualified to be the citizen of Bangladesh under Article 3 of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provision) Order, 1972 was of any legal effect and whether the show cause notice dated March 23, 1992 served on him as reference has any lawful authority. The answer is ‘No’]
To meet the requirements of the new situation that emerged out of independence of Bangladesh P.O. 149 of 1972 was brought into existence on 15 December, 1972. one day before the commencement of the Constitution so that It might get the constitutional protection of an existing law. It has undergone several amendments. At present, law of citizenship is governed by two legislations the Citizenship Act, 1951 continued as an existing law and the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary Provisions) Order, 1972 (P.O. 149 of 1972) which came into force on 15 December, 1972, but It was given effect from 26 March, 1971. [Para-9] Bangladesh Vs. Prof. Golam Azam & Ors. 3 BLT (AD)-3.

Citizenship and nationality
Citizenship is distinct from nationality— Citizenship is a creature solely of domestic Law—It refers to right which a state sees fit to counter upon certain individuals who are also nationals-citizens are those persons who1ae full political rights as distinguished fromuaiona1s who may not enjoy political rights still domiciled in that country. Government of Bangladesh Vs. Mirza Skakab Ispahani, 8 BLD (AD) 41.